Firm Resources and Sustained Competitive Advantage

The dynamic capabilities framework analyzes the sources and methods of wealth creation and capture by private enterprise firms operating in environments of rapid technological change. The competitive advantage of firms is seen as resting on distinctive processes (ways of coordinating and combining), shaped by the firm's (specific) asset positions (such as the firm's portfolio of difftcult-to- trade knowledge assets and complementary assets), and the evolution path(s) it has aflopted or inherited. The importance of path dependencies is amplified where conditions of increasing retums exist. Whether and how a firm's competitive advantage is eroded depends on the stability of market demand, and the ease of replicability (expanding intemally) and imitatability (replication by competitors). If correct, the framework suggests that private wealth creation in regimes of rapid technological change depends in large measure on honing intemal technological, organizational, and managerial processes inside the firm. In short, identifying new opportunities and organizing effectively and efficiently to embrace them are generally more fundamental to private wealth creation than is strategizing, if by strategizing one means engaging in business conduct that keeps competitors off balance, raises rival's costs, and excludes new entrants. © 1997 by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

/pdf/dynamic-capabilities-and-strategic-management-4iyi34iyh6.pdf

Dynamic capabilities and strategic management

Scholars of the theory of the firm have begun to emphasize the sources and conditions of what has been described as “the organizational advantage,” rather than focus on the causes and consequences of market failure. Typically, researchers see such organizational advantage as accruing from the particular capabilities organizations have for creating and sharing knowledge. In this article we seek to contribute to this body of work by developing the following arguments: (1) social capital facilitates the creation of new intellectual capital; (2) organizations, as institutional settings, are conducive to the development of high levels of social capital; and (3) it is because of their more dense social capital that firms, within certain limits, have an advantage over markets in creating and sharing intellectual capital. We present a model that incorporates this overall argument in the form of a series of hypothesized relationships between different dimensions of social capital and the main mechanisms and proces...

https://www.jstor.org/stable/pdfplus/259373.pdf

Social Capital, Intellectual Capital, and the Organizational Advantage

In this article we offer a view that suggests that a firm's critical resources may span firm boundaries and may be embedded in interfirm resources and routines. We argue that an increasingly important unit of analysis for understanding competitive advantage is the relationship between firms and identify four potential sources of interorganizational competitive advantage: (1) relation-specific assets, (2) knowledge-sharing routines, (3) complementary resources/capabilities, and (4) effective governance. We examine each of these potential sources of rent in detail, identifying key subprocesses, and also discuss the isolating mechanisms that serve to preserve relational rents. Finally, we discuss how the relational view may offer normative prescriptions for firm-level strategies that contradict the prescriptions offered by those with a resource-based view or industry structure view.

https://www.jstor.org/stable/pdfplus/259056.pdf

The Relational View: Cooperative Strategy and Sources of Interorganizational Competitive Advantage

This paper elucidates the underlying economics of the resource-based view of competitive advantage and integrates existing perspectives into a parsimonious model of resources and firm performance. The essence of this model is that four conditions underlie sustained competitive advantage, all of which must be met. These include superior resources (heterogeneity within an industry), ex post limits to competition, imperfect resource mobility, and ex ante limits to competition. In the concluding section, applications of the model for both single business strategy and corporate strategy are discussed.

/pdf/the-cornerstones-of-competitive-advantage-a-resource-based-3e5kjm7wfk.pdf

The cornerstones of competitive advantage: A resource‐based view

Given incomplete factor markets, appropriate time paths of flow variables must be chosen to build required stocks of assets. That is, critical resources are accumulated rather than acquired in "strategic factor markets" Barney [Barney, J. 1986. Strategic factor markets: Expectations, luck, and business strategy. Management Sci. October 1231-1241.]. Sustainability of a firm's asset position hinges on how easily assets can be substituted or imitated. Imitability is linked to the characteristics of the asset accumulation process: time compression diseconomies, asset mass efficiencies, inter-connectedness, asset erosion and causal ambiguity.

Asset stock accumulation and sustainability of competitive advantage

Authors' reply to comments regarding their paper Dierickx, I., K. Cool. 1989. Asset stock accumulation and the sustainability of competitive advantage. Management Sci..

Asset Stock Accumulation and the Sustainability of Competitive Advantage: Reply

The focus of this paper is on three major questions: 1 what is the theoretical rationale for the strategic group concept?; 2 does strategic group membership have performance implications?; and 3 are strategic groups and membership in strategic groups stable characteristics of industries? A statistical procedure is proposed to longitudinally identify strategic groups. The empirical setting is the U.S. pharmaceutical industry over the period 1963-82. While performance differences are found in terms of market share, profitability differences between groups are not observed. Neither are differences found in terms of risk and risk-adjusted performance. These results are attributed to the existence of performance variation within each strategic group. A dynamic model of competitive repositioning is proposed which helps integrate the findings from the study.

Strategic Group Formation and Performance: The Case of the U.S. Pharmaceutical Industry, 1963-1982

Whether and why members of the same strategic group would experience different performance results has received little attention in previous research. These questions are addressed in this paper. First, conventional theory on the relationship between firm performance and strategic group membership is reviewed. Then a theory is developed as to how historical differences among strategic group members may result in performance differences. An empirical analysis of risk and return relationships is conducted, centered on the nature of environmental change characterizing the industry. The empirical setting throughout is the U.S. pharmaceutical industry over the period 1963–82.

Performance differences among strategic group members

An analysis of the U.S. pharmaceutical industry during the period 1963–82 finds that a substantial decline in industry profitability is not explained by changes in the number and size distribution of firms, in segment interdependence and in strategic distance. In contrast, declining industry profitability is strongly associated with increasing rivalry. This increasing rivalry is associated with changes in strategic group structure and a concomitant shift from within group rivalry to between group rivalry.

Karel Cool

Papers

Asset stock accumulation and sustainability of competitive advantage

Asset Stock Accumulation and the Sustainability of Competitive Advantage: Reply

Strategic Group Formation and Performance: The Case of the U.S. Pharmaceutical Industry, 1963-1982

Performance differences among strategic group members

Rivalry, Strategic Groups and Firm Profitability